Omissions

doi:10.1017/9781108649742.002

2 - Omissions

from Part II - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019

Kai Ambos

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Thomas Weigend and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

From a naturalistic perspective, omission is the opposite of action – it is non-action (not-doing), absence of action. From this perspective, an act or active conduct can be easily identified because of the expenditure of energy it generates, for example, through a bodily movement causing a certain result in the empirical world. In contrast, an omission lacks a physical reality; it does not display any (causal) energy; it is, in this sense, simply non-existent. As a consequence of such a naturalistic approach, it has been argued that omissions cannot actually cause any result and thus cannot have any legal relevance, let alone create criminal liability.

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 17 - 53

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649742.002 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, L., ‘Criminal Liability for Omissions: An Inventory of Issues’, in Simester, A. and Shute, S. (eds.), Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part, Oxford University Press (2002), 121–42.Google Scholar

Allen, M., Textbook on Criminal Law, 14th edn, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar

Ambos, K., ‘The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 9 (2015), 301–29.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., ‘Book Review “Schrägle, Unterlassungsdelikt (2017)”’, Criminal Law Forum, 28 (2017), 777–81.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., National Socialist Criminal Law, Baden-Baden and Oxford, Nomos and Hart, (2019).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’, Law Quarterly Review, 105 (1989), 424–59.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘Die Rettungspflicht im englischen Recht. Sinnvolle Einschränkungen oder “Island Mentality”?’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht: zur Funktion und Legitimation strafrechtlicher Solidaritätspflichten, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 115–31.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., Positive Obligations in Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2013).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar

Bachmaier, L. and del Moral, García A., ‘Spain’, in Verbruggen, F. (ed.), Int. Encyclopaedia: Criminal Law, 4 vols. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer (2010), IV.Google Scholar

Bohlander, M., The German Criminal Code: A Modern English Translation, Oxford, Hart (2008).Google Scholar

Bell, J., Boyron, S. and Whittaker, S., Principles of French Law, Oxford University Press (2008).Google Scholar

Bentham, J. D., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Kitchener, Batoche Books (2000 [1781]).Google Scholar

Berster, L. C., Die völkerstrafrechtliche Unterlassungverantwortlichkeit, Munich, Utz (2008).Google Scholar

Bosch, N., (and Eisele, J.) ‘Vorbemerkung zu §§ 13 ff.’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), StGB Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019), mn. 1–161.Google Scholar

Bouloc, B. and Matsopoulou, H., Droit pénal général et procédure pénale, 20th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar

Bouzat, P. and Pinatel, J., Traité de droit pénal et de criminologie, Paris, Dalloz (1963).Google Scholar

Brammsen, J., Die Entstehungsvoraussetzungen der Garantenpflichten, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1986).CrossRef Google Scholar

Cassese, A., ‘Omission Liability and Superior Responsibility’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), International Criminal Law, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press (2013), 180–92.Google Scholar

Chiesa, L. E., ‘Comparative Criminal Law’, in Dubber, M. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 1089–114.Google Scholar

Colvin, E. and Anand, S. S., Principles of Criminal Law, 3rd edn, Toronto, Thomson Carswell (2007).Google Scholar

Debove, F. and Falletti, F., Précis de droit pénal et de procédure pénale, 6th edn, Paris, Puf (2016).Google Scholar

Demetrio, Crespo E., ‘Lección 8: El tipo omisivo’, in Crespo, D. (ed.), Lecciones y materiales para el estudio del Derecho Penal, 7 vols., 2nd edn, Madrid, Iustel (2015), II, 173–93.Google Scholar

Desportes, F. and le Gunehec, F., Droit pénal général, 16th edn, Paris, Economica (2009).Google Scholar

Dias, F., Direito Penal: Parte Especial, 2nd edn, Lissabon, AAFDL (2007).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., ‘Towards a Modest Legal Moralism’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8 (2014), 217–35.Google Scholar

Duttwiler, M., ‘Liability for Omission in International Criminal Law’, International Criminal Law Review, 6 (2006), 1–61.Google Scholar

Edwards, J. and Simester, A., ‘What’s Public about Crime?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37 (2017), 105–33Google Scholar

Elliot, C., French Criminal Law, Uffculme, Willan Publication (2001).Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., Harm to Others, Oxford University Press (1984).Google Scholar

Feldbrugge, F. J. M., ‘Good and Bad Samaritans’, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 14 (1965), 630–57.Google Scholar

Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 2nd edn, Giessen, Heyer (1803).Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., Rethinking Criminal Law, 2nd edn, Boston, Little Brown (1978) [reprint 2002].Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., ‘On the Moral Irrelevance of Bodily Movements’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142 (1994), 1443–54.Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1998).Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., The Grammar of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).CrossRef Google Scholar

Freund, G., ‘§ 13’, in Heintschel-Heinegg, B. von (ed.), Münchener Kommentar StGB, 8 vols., 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), I.Google Scholar

Gide, A., La Séquestrée de Poitiers, Paris, Éditions Gallimard (1930).Google Scholar

Gómez-Aller, J. D., ‘Criminal Omissions: A European Perspective’, New Criminal Law Review, 11 (2008) 419–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Greene, J., ‘From Neural “Is” to Moral “Ought”: What Are the Moral Implications of Neuroscientific Moral Psychology?’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4 (2003), 846–50.Google Scholar

Harzer, R., Die tatbestandsmäßige Situation der unterlassenen Hilfeleistung, Frankfurt a.M., Klostermann (1999).Google Scholar

Hennau, C. and Verhaegen, J., Droit pénal général, Brussels, Bruylant (2003).Google Scholar

Herzberg, R. D., Die Unterlassung im Strafrecht und das Garantenprinzip, Berlin, De Gruyter (1972).Google Scholar

Honoré, T., Responsibility and Fault, Oxford, Hart (1999).Google Scholar

Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRef Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Rights of Others in Criminalisation Theory’, in Simester, A. P., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Neumann, U. (eds.), Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch, Oxford, Hart (2014), 169–85.Google Scholar

Hume, D., Treatise of Human Nature, Books I-III (1739), https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume-a-treatise-of-human-nature.CrossRef Google Scholar

Husak, D. N., Philosophy, Totowa, Rowman & Littlefield (1987).Google Scholar

Husak, D. N., ‘The Alleged Act Requirement in Criminal Law’, in Deigh, J. and Dolinko, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 107–24.Google Scholar

Huschens, W., Die Unterlassene Hilfeleistung im nationalsozialistischen Strafrecht, Speyer am Rhein, Pilger (1938).Google Scholar

Jakobs, G., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (1993).Google Scholar

Jakobs, G., ‘Feuerbachs Verbrechensbegriff: Rechtsverletzung’, in Koch, A., Kubiciel, M., Löhning, M. and Pawlik, M. (eds.), Feuerbachs Bayerisches Strafgesetzbuch, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2014), 209–26.Google Scholar

Jescheck, H.-H., ‘Die Behandlung der unechten Unterlassungsdelikte im deutschen und ausländischen Strafrecht’ Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 77 (1965), 109–48.Google Scholar

Jescheck, H.-H., ‘Probleme des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts in rechtsvergleichender Sicht’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), 140 Jahre GA, Heidelberg, Decker’s (1993), 115–29.Google Scholar

Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J. and Steiker, C. S., Criminal Law and its Processes, 9th edn, New York, Aspen Publishers (2012).Google Scholar

Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J. and Steiker, C. S., Criminal Law and its Processes, 10th edn, New York, Aspen Publishers (2017).Google Scholar

Kahlo, M., Das Problem des Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhangs bei den unechten Unterlassungsdelikten, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1990).Google Scholar

Kant, I., ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft’, in Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, Reimer (1903 [1781]), 3-252, www.korpora.org/kant/aa04/Inhalt4.html; English translation by Meiklejohn, J. M. D., Generic NL Freebook Publisher (1855).Google Scholar

Kargl, W., ‘Unterlassene Hilfeleistung (§ 323c StGB): Zum Verhältnis von Recht und Moral’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 141 (1994), 247–63.Google Scholar

Kaplan, J., Weisberg, R. and Binder, G., Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, 8th edn, New York, Aspen Publishers (2017).Google Scholar

Kaufmann, A., ‘Methodische Probleme der Gleichstellung des Unterlassens mit der Begehung’, Juristische Schulung, 1 (1961), 173–5.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, A., Die Dogmatik der Unterlassungsdelikte, Göttingen, Otto Schwartz (1988 [1959]).Google Scholar

Kirchheimer, O., ‘Criminal Omissions’, Harvard Law Review, 55 (1942), 617–19.Google Scholar

Klotter, J. C. and Pollock, J. M., Criminal Law, 10th edn, Waltham, Elsevier (2013).Google Scholar

Kolb, R., ‘Droit international pénal’, in Kolb, R. and Scalia, D. (eds.), Droit international pénal: Précis, 2nd edn, Bâle, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2012), 195–203Google Scholar

Kühl, K., ‘Zur Anwendung des Solidaritätsbegriffs auf die unterlassene Hilfeleistung nach § 323c StGB’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 93–102.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kühnbach, L., Solidaritätspflichten Unbeteiligter, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2007).Google Scholar

Landes, W. M. and Poser, R. A., ‘Salvors, Finders, Good Samaritans, and Other Rescuers: An Economic Study of Law and Altruism’, Journal of Legal Studies, 7 (1978), 83–128.CrossRef Google Scholar

Law Commission, Criminal Law: A Criminal Code for England and Wales, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1989).Google Scholar

Leroy, J., Droit pénal général, 3rd edn, Paris, LGDJ (2010).Google Scholar

Liszt, F. von, Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht, 3rd edn, Frankfurt/Main, Vitorio Klostermann (1968 [1883]).Google Scholar

Luzón Peña, D.-M., ‘Kausalität beim unechten Unterlassungsdelikt?’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 165 (2018), 520–8.Google Scholar

Maihold, H., ‘Jenseits weltanschaulicher Ideologien? – Zur Einführung und Begründung der allgemeinen Nothilfepflicht im Schweizerischen Strafrecht’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 131–54.Google Scholar

Maiwald, M., ‘Grundlagenprobleme der Unterlassungsdelikte’, Juristische Schulung, 21 (1981), 473–83.Google Scholar

Malec, A., ‘The Is–Ought Problem and Legal Rationality’, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 24 (2007), 7–13.Google Scholar

Manning, M., Mewett, A. W. and Sankoff, P., Criminal Law, 4th edn, Markham, Lexis Nexis (2009).Google Scholar

Mayaud, Y., Droit pénal général, 6th edn, Paris, PUF (2018).Google Scholar

Mir Puig, S., Derecho Penal: Parte General, 10th edn, Barcelona, Editorial Reppertor (2016).Google Scholar

Moore, M. S., Act and Crime, Oxford University Press (1993).Google Scholar

Muñoz Conde, F. and García Arán, M., Derecho Penal: Parte General, 9th edn, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch (2015).Google Scholar

Nagler, J., ‘Die Problematik der Begehung durch Unterlassung’, Der Gerichtssaal, 111 (1938), 1–63.Google Scholar

Oldnall Russell, W. and Ryan, E. (eds.), ‘Rex v. John Friend and Anne his Wife’, in Oldnall, Russell W. and Ryan, E., Crown Cases Reserved for Consideration and Decided by the Twelve Judges of England from the Year 1799 to the Year 1824, London, Butterworth (1825), 20–2.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. C. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar

Pawlik, M., ‘Unterlassene Hilfeleistung: Zuständigkeitsbegründung und systematische Struktur’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 142 (1995), 363–4.Google Scholar

Pawlik, M., Der rechtfertigende Notstand, Berlin, De Gruyter (2002).Google Scholar

Pawlik, M., Das Unrecht des Bürgers, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2012).Google Scholar

Pedotti, E., Die Unterlassung der Nothilfe mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des geltenden und künftigen schweizerischen Rechtes, Aarau, Sauerländer (1911).Google Scholar

Pfordten, D. von der, ‘Zur Rechtfertigung von Hilfeleistungspflichten’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 103–15.Google Scholar

Politoff, I., Koopmans, E. and Ramírez, J. B., ‘Chile’, in International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Criminal Law, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International (1999), 79.Google Scholar

Pradel, J., Droit pénal général, 20th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar

Pradel, J., Droit pénal comparé, 4th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar

Pradel, J. and Danti-Juan, M., Droit pénal spécial, 7th edn, Paris, Éditions Cujas (2017).Google Scholar

Pulitanò, D., Diritto Penale, 7th edn, Torino, Giappichelli (2017).Google Scholar

Rebut, D., ‘Omissions de porter secours – entrave aux mesures d’assistance’, Répertoire de droit pénal et de procédure pénale (2017 [2003]).Google Scholar

Roach, K., Criminal Law, 7th edn, Toronto, Irvin Law (2018).Google Scholar

Robinson, P. H., ‘Criminal Liability for Omissions: A Brief Summary and Critique of the Law in the United States’, New York Law School Law Review 29 (1984), 101–27.Google Scholar

Romano, M., Commentario sistematico del Codice penale, 3 vols. Milan, Giuffré (2004), I.Google Scholar

Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil II, Munich, C. H. Beck (2003).Google Scholar

Sánchez, S., ‘Entre la omisión de socorro y la comisión por omisión’, Derechos Procesales Fundamentales (Consejo General del Poder Judicial) 4 (1999), 153–72.Google Scholar

Sánchez, S., Estudios sobre los delitos de omisión, Lima, Grijley (2004).Google Scholar

Sánchez, S., ‘Zur Dreiteilung der Unterlassungsdelikte’, in von Schünemann, B., Achenbach, H., Bottke, W., Haffke, B. and Rudolphi, H.-J. (eds.), Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 70. Geburtstag am 15. Mai 2001, Berlin, De Gruyter (2011), 641–50.Google Scholar

Schaffstein, F., ‘Das Verbrechen als Pflichtverletzung’, in Dahm, G. (ed.), Grundlagen der neuen Rechtswissenschaft, Berlin, Junker & Dünnhaupt (1935), 108–42.Google Scholar

Schiff, D., ‘Samaritans: Good, Bad and Ugly’, Roger Williams University Law Review, 11 (2005), 77–141.Google Scholar

Schmidhäuser, E., ‘Über Unterlassensbegriffe – Terminologie und Begriffe’, in Britz, G. and Müller-Dietz, H. (eds.), Grundfragen staatlichen Strafens: Festschrift für Heinz Müller-Dietz, Munich, C. H. Beck (2001), 761–82.Google Scholar

Schmidt-Künzel, B., Die Unterlassungsdelikte im französischen Code Penal unter besonderen Berücksichtigungen der unechten Unterlassensdelikte, Freiburg, Dissertation (1971).Google Scholar

Schmitt, R., ‘Zur Systematik der Unterlassungsdelikte’, JuristenZeitung, 14 (1959) 432–4.Google Scholar

Schöch, H., ‘Zur Strafbarkeit der Behinderung von hilfeleistenden Personen’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 165 (2018), 510–19.Google Scholar

Schrägle, H., Das begehungsgleiche Unterlassungsdelikt: eine rechtsgeschichtliche, rechtsdogmatische und rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung und die Entwicklung eines Systems der Garantietypen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2017).Google Scholar

Schünemann, B., Grund und Grenzen der unechten Unterlassungsdelikte: zugleich ein Beitrag zur strafrechtlichen Methodenlehre, Göttingen, Schwartz (1971).Google Scholar

Schünemann, B., ‘Zur Garantenstellung beim unechten Unterlassungsdelikt’, in Böse, M. and Sternberg-Lieben, D. (eds.), Grundlagen des Straf- und Strafverfahrensrechts. Festschrift für Knut Amelung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2010), 303–24.Google Scholar

Seelmann, K., ‘“Unterlassene Hilfeleistung”oder: Was darf das Strafrecht?’, Juristische Schulung, 35 (1995), 281–6.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., Legal Theory, Cambridge University Press (1995).Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, G. J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law, 5th edn, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar

Smith, J. C., ‘Liability for Omissions in the Criminal Law’, Legal Studies, 14 (1984) 88–101.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stephen, J. F., A History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. London, Macmillan (1883), III.Google Scholar

Stewart, M. J., ‘How Making the Failure to Assist Illegal Fails to Assist’, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 25 (1998) 385–436.Google Scholar

Stuart, D., Delisle, R. J. and Coughlan, S., Learning Canadian Criminal Law, 14th edn, Toronto, Carswell (2018).Google Scholar

Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Causation’, in Dubber, M. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 468–89.Google Scholar

Tadros, V., Criminal Responsibility, Oxford University Press (2005).Google Scholar

Thorburn, M., ‘Constitutionalism and the limits of the Criminal Law’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E., Renzo, M. and Tadros, V. (eds.), The Structures of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 85–105.Google Scholar

Torre, I. B. G. de la and Arroyo Zapatero, L., Curso de Derecho Penal: Parte General, 3rd edn, Barcelona, Ediciones Experiencia (2016).Google Scholar

Véron, M., Droit Pénal Spécial, 15th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2015).Google Scholar

Vranken, M., ‘Duty to Rescue in Civil Law and Common Law: Les extrêmes se touchent?’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 47 (1998), 934–42.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘§ 13’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Tiedemann, K. and Rissing-van Saan, R. (eds.), Leipziger Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 13 vols., 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007).Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘The Theory of Excuses’, Criminal Law Review, 1 (1982), 732–73.Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘Criminal Omissions: The Conventional View’, Law Quarterly Review, 107 (1991), 86–98.Google Scholar

Winkler, C. W., Dissertation de Crimine Omissionis, Leipzig, Breitkopf (1776).Google Scholar

Wittmann, R., ‘Die unterlassene Hilfeleistung aus rechtsvergleichender und rechtsethischer Sicht’, in Joerden, J. and Schmoller, K. (eds.), Rechtsstaatliches Strafen. Festschrift Yamanaka, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2017), 363–70.Google Scholar

Book contents

2 - Omissions

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive